Johnson overrode advice about appointing the son of a KGB officer into the Lords.
Nothing from the media. Not a whisper.
Starmer doesn’t override advice
Media storm and a hounding of epic proportions.
The *entire Starmer project* needs to be understood as one big Jobs For The Boys operation. That’s why McSweeney - Labour’s squillionaire bungs officer - spent 2017-19 running around telling dejected MPs to hold tight, because he was going to hook them back up with their clout, status and freebies.
The thing about this is that, fat phobic representation of reform voter aside, Starmer giving everybody the finger and saying still your prime minister is pretty much what is going on.
Like he's giving the viewer of the image, the finger not the reform voter.
Hard to believe that Sue Gray would have allowed Starmer to appoint Mandelson (to anything). For someone who is basically honourable and so keen on 'the process' to allow himself to be dominated by political shysters is sad. He'd have won the election if I, or even Kemi, had been his election chief.
Does anyone else see the dark hand of Jeremy Corbyn behind this latest scandal? Could he have been working with Olly Robbins to put Mandelson in post, knowing fine well that this would undermine the vital mission of Starmer's government?
Starmer certainly could have handled this matter better.
But I get the sense that it's important for the sanity of UK politics that he rides out the storm – which, for most intents and purposes, is in a teacup – and stays on. If nothing else, to give this kind of hyperbole a shot across the bow.
Starmer created this crisis by sacking a qualified and competent woman.
And when he sacked career diplomat Karen Pierce to give Mandelson her job, SIX other senior women diplomats left FCDO as their careers were doomed under his government.
He's done far worse, but I'm fine if this does for him.
I love that even Starmer's biggest fans start every defense with 'he's not perfect but' because they know deep down he's got nothing
Olly Robbins has definitely come out on top. Robbins 2, Starmer 0 (two own goals). Sacking him has backfired on Starmer. Olly much more convincing. Starmer’s claim that he would have blocked Mandelson appointment if he had known about security vetting doubts is in shreds 1/
‘just how central was Peter Mandelson to the Starmer project’ is a question that is becoming increasingly close to being permissible, and I think Starmer is 100% done once it starts being asked
The spotlight is now clearly back on Starmer’s original decision to appoint Mandelson
The diversionary tactic of blaming the civil service has not worked
Farage backed Mandelson’s appointment, called him a “very intelligent man”,“enormously talented bloke,” and even offered to work with him on a Trump trade deal. The moment it backfired, he changed his tune & said Starmer should resign. He is a charlatan.
#JackDart
RIP all the Starmer fans on Bluesky frantically wordsmithing their sad little takes about it’s the meeeedddiiiaaaa and Starmer is a stand up guy xx
Of course many more people would be rallying to Starmer's defence if he hadn't been such a godawful PM so far.
A lot of people spent days going "OMG OMG OMG popcorn at the ready SiR kEiTh obvs lying; Olly Robbins has the receipts". Now they're like "too clever to get caught, they did it with VIBEZ."
From "Starmer is really bad at politics" straight to "Starmer is Machiavelli reincarnated" - like every week.
Not only did they not bother to pay for silence, they gave him a an incentive to throw Starmer under the bus and a platform to do it.
A lot of us hoped Starmer would turn out to be a better PM than he was LOTO. He's not. He's been excellent on Iran and on Ukraine. But that's not enough. Nowhere near.
The thing about Starmer and Mandelson @mrjamesob.bsky.social isn't so much the mistake of the appointment, as Ed Miliband rightly observed this am, even prime ministers make mistakes
It's about setting standards then applying them fairly, which is what Labour suggested they would do after 14 years
So in the end, if you don't like Starmer, you think he should go.
If you do, you think he should stay.
What has changed?
On & forward...
I want Starmer & the Govt to put as much right as is possible after the Tory (& LibDems) 14 year sh*t show.
In 2029, if you still don't like him, vote accordingly.
The 'Starmer appointed Mandelson because he needed someone to manage Trump' - not true. What happened was:
1) From the general election there was a desire in Downing Street for a political appointee
2) There was no question that the US embassy had good Trumpworld links as it was
Starmer needs to reset his relationship with the media - and this should involve spending the next few months giving interviews, highlighting his strengths & talking about the success of this governmen.
The media aren’t on Labour’s side and this needs to change.
so here's the thing about robbins' committee appearance. if you understand how this all works and you understand how civil servants speak, he's basically destroyed starmer's reputation and any notion he has sound judgement. the problem is the one group you can guarantee don't understand is the media
